“There is always war, BAE make money out of that fact. If you stop the wars, you stop BAE. It doesn’t work vice-versa.”

Forgive me but I don’t believe I missed this point, instead you appear to have misinterpreted mine. I have not, of course, suggested at any point that this would work vice-versa or that the University of York divesting would stop either BAE or war in general. This would be ludicrous. I have instead suggested only that it is irrational to draw from this that there is nothing at all wrong with investing in the arms trade, directly addressing your initial point that there is nothing immoral about this.

Such a divestment would not stop war; it does not follow that it would do no good at all. Arresting a single murderer or helping a single person out of poverty would be a miniscule contribution in relation to the huge wealth of crime and poverty that exists but it would still be absolutely worthwhile. Similarly, the University of York divesting may indeed only have marginal impact on BAE or the arms trade, but to say that it would have no effect at all is to twist this limited truth into a blatant untruth. Over £700,000 worth of shares is not nothing and even if the impact was, as you say, minimal and temporary it would, in my opinion, nevertheless be worthwhile, even if we ignore the possible knock-on effect this may have on other universities who invest in similar firms. Perhaps you will again tell me that I am “blissfully naive” for thinking that a £700,000 divestment could help prevent even one missile strike or bombing run somewhere in the world. Given the importance of the issue though, I’m afraid I can’t just take your word for that.

In any case, you seem to be misunderstanding or ignoring some of the further reasons for divestment. Divestment need not be entirely based on the magnitude of predicted consequences for the company or general situation in question. I imagine that vegetarians do not believe that their personal stance will bring down the entire meat industry, or that organisations linked with cancer research organisations prohibit investment in tobacco because they think this will end the tobacco industry. Insofar as we can have any influence on how money that we have contributed is invested, we have a responsibility to recommend and attempt to ensure that that money is not invested in trades or companies that we believe are morally unacceptable. To put this in the form of a thought-experiment and question, and a context in which investment has already taken place, imagine that you find yourself one morning with a headache and a number of shares in “Terrorists, murderers, racists and general evil-doers INC”, a multi-billion pound organisation. Would you be happy with that state of affairs or would you look to divest, even assuming that this investment is performing reasonably well for you and that your personal divestment could have only a minimal and temporary effect?

In any case, ignoring such cringe-worthy spam messages, I would say that ethical investment is an inherently political issue; nobody here is trying to “politicise” this any more than you are.

And I am sorry but I do not think that it is reasonable to argue that only the “far-left” is interested in this, and I also do not think it is to anyone’s surprise that the campus far-right simply doesn’t care about it.

By all means, why would you? I mean it’s not as if you suddenly decided to apply for re-admission in the human race is it?

drop bombs, not beats!!! long live BAE!

“‘freddy vanson’ (I have not time to work out the anagram)”

Check it out Taylor: https://www.york.ac.uk/directory/user/search.cfm

Epic fail…

Did you mean “bunkum”?

Dan Taylor @ 9.17pm: “the alterior political motives”

Is that meant to be “ulterior”?

And that’s not even mentioning the populous scandal of 3.35pm. No lectures today Dan?

C’mon, your standards are slipping!

Predicted response: very mature, don’t engage with my arguments, waaa waaaa waaa

And that is all I shall say on the matter

Can people not see that this whole issue is being used to further the alterior political motives of a few. My word, at best this is misleading what’s in the quote, at worst it’s downright mad!! Anyone would think it was the Marxist Soc. rather than Labour Soc. To think these people claim to be moderate.

Clearly, York supporting BAE does not put guns in the hands of our children. It’s sensationalist, misleading, politicised and bares no relationship to the debate being had. There is one group of students trying to politicise this debate, and it’s not the ‘right’.

How very unprofessional…

Rofl! Very Labour indeed!!

How very Labour David!

The Club apologises for this error

David Levene
Chair, York University Labour Club

RE: first comment, not a typo, just sarcasm and as for students who apply to non-arms investing colleges, that’s an interesting claim, even more so with proof.

I’ve also been quite particular about not resorting to the “Great British institution” line or the so many british jobs it provides for the fact that it’s irrelevant to the principle behind the investment. It makes money, lots of money, whether it be research grants or dividends.

Just because it’s not directly beneficial to departments of history of art or sociology, does not mean it doesn’t benefit the university hugely.

Does anyone actually believe that selling our shares will make the world a better place?

I still find it quite odd how there’s this massive outrage that staff pension funds are invested in BAE, but I never hear anything about how academics here are directly working with BAE into improving this “evil”.

JB, I assume that’s a typo in your first point, but that aside, most Oxbridge colleges have actually divested thanks to student pressure. People were actually choosing non-arms investing colleges as a preference. Also, your comment about our money not making a difference is completely vacuous. Think about what you are saying. All campaigns run on the idea that if everyone did their little bit, a large amount can be done. With your logic, nothing would ever change.

The problem with this debate is that for the most part, individuals are hankering on about right-wing left-wing nationalist socialist crap and not acutally addressing the issue. Spend 15 minutes on google. Look at some numbers and facts. This isn’t about whether or not Winston sodding Churchill is a war criminal or whether campus is being overrun with Marxists, its about whether or not an educational institution, with departments that actively research issues of peace and conflict resolution should hold direct shares in companies that manufacture weapons. Yes, BAE will make bombs and guns with or without our money. So then surely BAE doesn’t need our money, and our divestment isn’t going to spell the end of a great british institution or whatever hyperbolic terminology you’d like to use.

“arms can be risky and unreliable” – is that comment just to fill space?? All investments can be risky, arms, completely contrary to your beliefs, is not a high risk investment. York’s financial analysts (who I can assume are more qualified than you and I) have deemed it a good investment where they think we can make the most money. It’s not as though they’ve looked at 2 options, one’s “ethical and the most profitable”, the other’s BAE which is marginally less profitable and gone with BAE because they’re war mongering fascists.

This “positive effect” you’re thinking of (without expanding on) is blissfully naive; selling our shares to another investor will have a minimal effect on the share price for a minimal amount of time. We own a minute fraction of company with an annual turnover £16 Billion. We really wont frustrate them. AT ALL.

But, and bless you for this, you seem to have ignored the point of my argument;

There is always war, BAE make money out of that fact. If you stop the wars, you stop BAE. It doesn’t work vice-versa.

Really!? Every single one of them? Call me cynical, but I’m not sure I believe that. My scepticism is due, in part, to the fact you have most likely never even met most of these people.

What I think is more likely is that you have heard one person say something along those lines and delighted upon the opportunity to conflate two issues and resurrect your embarrassingly tired mantra that everything you disagree with is only the opinion of “extreme leftists”. Really this is not an issue of left vs. right but of objective thinking, acknowledging the damage that the vast majority of BAE’s products do and the opportunities for alternative investment, vs. narrow-minded and myopic support for the status quo. Incidentally one institution that has an ethically-managed fund precluding investment in (among other things) arms, is the Church of England. Hardly a hotbed of radical Marxist activity.

If you are not familiar with this fine gentleman and his 31 year legacy of oppression then I’d suggest you refrain from trying to be all PC about it.

Having York not invest in arms companies will obviously not put an end to wars. Anyone believing that would be nothing short of a mentally retarded hippie. But as David said, not supporting racism will also not put an end to racists. Following your logic we may as well all join the BNP.

I’m really curious as to how this “perfect common sense” works.

To whom, that are all concerned,
JOIN THE CAMPAIGN TO STOP UNIVERSITY OF YORK INVESTMENT IN THE ARMS TRADE (and in particular BAE Systems)
Thanks to the facts Nouse has highlighted The University of York has seen a £350,000 investment increase over the past two years, meaning the University’s shareholding in arms-producing companies is worth £997,342.
Yet national and campus campaigners have been calling for divestment since 2005. We were promised by the university they would adopt a motion proposed 2 years ago but have not met with their commitments; instead they have increased their investment in the arms trade.
Investments in BAE Systems, the world’s third largest defence company, still persist without reasonable signs of opposition; we must stop the silence. “BAE Systems continue to sell arms to brutal regimes like Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, two of the worst human rights abusers on the planet,” said CAAT spokesperson Todd Higgs.
By paying our tuition fees we, the students, directly finance the University of York’s investment in the arms trade. We want to put an end to this abuse, as this in direct conflict with student values and university principles. “All over the country, students are refusing to allow their tuition fees to end up in the hands of such a secretive and abhorrent industry.” Higgs
The production and distribution of arms (bombs, guns, mines etc) is, in its very essence, a violation of human rights; the right to live free from fear and oppression. The arms trade violates these principles; companies like BAE Systems continually contribute, inspire and inevitably lead to atrocities and abuses of human rights.
Attached to this email is a document that outlines the Campaign to stop university investment in the arms trade, feel welcome to read it and comment, add to the idea with any contribution you may have. This is a student campaign in union with the people, for all. We as a community cannot hide from the truth; we are indirectly funding the continuation and perpetuation of conflict, war and destruction.
Make a stand, let people know the facts, raise awareness, be active! Please put up posters, give out flyers, and sign the petition. Students unite, get involved and start the protest! We are the ones putting guns in hands of children, we do not see, half way across the world. Speak for those who have no voice…

(For more info reply to this email)